686 Questions

[sjs]

I used to own a 6" 686 which was excellent in every respect, and I used it for IHMSA shooting. When I stopped shooting silhouette, I sold it because I thought the barrel was too long for my general hunting and range use. I want to get another 686 but have a few questions as I cannot find one locally to see in person and must order online.

1. The 4" looks great and I love the feel of my 4" GP100, but I am thinking I might like a 3" since I already have a 4" medium frame 357. The 3" looks great online but it has the smaller grip for concealed carry, and it is a Plus model with 7 shots. Is the grip frame the same size as the 4 and 6 inch guns with a smaller set of stocks, so I could just install a standard size set of stocks, or is it a smaller frame that will not work with larger grips/stocks?

2. Does the extra cylinder in the same frame size change the balance and feel of the revolver compared to a 6 shot?

 

[Beju]

FWIU, when it comes to grips: all 686s from the introduction of the 686-4 in 1993 are round butt only, so all of them from that date on take the same grips. Barring some special runs of squre butt distributor exclusives that I'm not aware of, that is.

The Plus models have the same diameter cylinders, they just have thinner walls between the charge holes. There is a listed 1.1 oz difference , so you might feel a tiny difference in weight distribution when empty. However, when loaded, you'd be gaining back an extra 0.5-.06 oz from the 7th round in the cylinder.

 

[Sevens]

Not to open a can of worms — but simply hoping to genuinely assist you…

If your last go round with a S&W 686 was back when IHMSA was most active then I would guess or suspect you’re talking 1980’s/1990’s.

It’s my strong opinion and the opinion of many that any 686 made right now just isn’t the same thing. It’s going to be like remembering how solid Mom’s Maytag washer was when you were a kid, and then buying a junker made today with that name on it.

There’s a truckload of older 686’s made and traded often on the used market. If your goal is to recapture magic, I promise that S&W made now ain’t it.

 

[OKFC05]

IMHO, the stocks, not an extra inch of barrel, on a 686 are the most likely to print when concealing, so I use the grippers, not the large stocks normally used for IHMSA. If you intend to use large stocks (which you can, all K and L frame stocks fit) there is little gain in concealment with a 3" barrel versus 4". My 3" J frame is noticeably easier to carry concealed.

 

[SteveJewels]

If you find one you like with small grips indicating a round butt, no problem. There are round to square butt conversion grips.

I like 6" for range work and 4" for carry. I had a 6" and thought that was the perfect size. A friend of mine 'made' me buy her 4". Much to my surprise, I really like it, the balance us superb. Both are square butts.

 

[sjs]

Thanks guys, that is helpful.

I am not planning on carrying it. Despite a short barrel it will be a range gun so I will want full size stocks.

I like to shoot 38 SP handloads double action and go through a lot of different drills and a lot of ammo. I am not really training for anything or competing, I just find that kind of target shooting to be great fun. An L frame size 357 gives me a very smooth double action feel, both for slow and fast fire. I also like to do some one-handed single action shooting. That is also more fun for me with this type of revolver.

A J or K frame size just feels different and is not as much fun, but it is not because of the recoil, just the overall balance and feel.

I know the feel and balance of a 4" is great but I am gambling on whether I will like a 3". I handled a 3" Colt King Cobra and a Colt Python today at the LGS and I think I will like the 3" Smith. They would not let me dry fire, so I only got a rough sense of the feel. I would consider the Python if it was cheaper.

The Cobra is affordable, but I just have special memories of my last 686. As one of you said, there is a kind of "686 Magic". Several years ago, I was trying out hot 357 loads for accuracy and getting zero data while shooting offhand at a large bullseye type target on the 300 yard rifle range. That was strange to the rifle shooters, but one chap came up to me and asked me about my 686. We had a nice chat as he was a retired FBI agent who had been a member of the HRT. Even from a distance he recognized the 686 and came over to talk about it as it was his favorite firearm and apparently at some point had carried one as an agent. He clearly thought there was some 686 magic.

Still, I am glad I have been warned about current S&W production models.

The search continues. Appreciate the comments.

 

[Beju]

In my experience, the older guns seem a bit more variable in DA trigger feel.

There was a pre-MIM 586 at a range that I worked at that had an amazing trigger, both SA and DA.

I cleaned a Model 60 no-dash for a relative. SA was very good. DA was not what I'd expect from an S&W, even after cleaning and lubricating. Definitely worse than my 642UC, and not just due to the heavier pull.

My 3 full size S&Ws are a 10-6, a 64-7 (both heavy barrels), and a 686-6.

The K frames are (probably) retired duty guns. The 686-6 was purchased new last year. I replaced the trigger rebound springs in them with 15 lb Wolff springs.

The 10-6 had a good bit of holster wear, but had a super clean bore, which is why I bought it. It had a broken pin holding the DA sear, which I replaced. I presume it belonged to the rare officer who dry fired like a maniac, but rarely shot it. The SA pull is really, really good, weighing in at 2.3 lbs. The DA pull is 9.0 lbs, but the 'feel' of it is nothing special.

The 64-7 probably belonged to a security or armored car company, and had a number written on the bottom of the factory Uncle Mike's grip (excellent). After switching the rebound spring, SA was 3.2 lbs, and DA was 9.4 lbs. SA is not as good as the 10-6, but I prefer the DA feel of the 64-7.

My 686-6 had some ugly flashing left behind in the frame lock hole, and a slight scratch next to it.. It's also proven to be the most accurate handgun that I have. My final zeroing group with a Holosun 507 Comp was just under 5 shots at 1.25" at 25 yards with some 125 gr SNS bullet handloads in once-fired .38 Special brass. A co-worker who's a better shooter than I am was easily able to stack 4 rounds of PMC Bronze 130 gr .38 Special into a 3.5" oval on a target shooting offhand at 25 yards (he fired the previous 2 at 15 yards). 3 of the 4 were touching or close to it. He's got some nicer handguns than me (both semi-auto and revolvers), and his response after getting that accuracy with inexpensive bulk ammo was, 'Man, you definitely got a good one!'

 

[rwsmith]

I think the 4" is ideal...

My 686 is a range gun and I like the 6" barrel, though it feels a little nose-heavy. I think the 4" would be more well balanced. And I also like the older models. My 686 no dash has a double action trigger like silk and a single action that is slightly worse than breaking a thin glass rod. I don't want anybody to work on it because they might mess it up.

 

[imakmst]

all 686s from the introduction of the 686-4 in 1993 are round butt only.

I own a 686-4, 6" SN BSE#### that is a square butt. Box label has 10/10/94.

 

[Beju]

I own a 686-4, 6" SN BSE#### that is a square butt. Box label has 10/10/94.

Hence the caveat that I added. S&W is willing to do plenty of variations so long as that get a guaranteed order in a sufficient quantity.

 

[CH4]

There are plenty of pre lock/MIM 4” 686 out there. Should be able to find one for less than a new one. Don’t settle!

 

[ISCS Yoda]

I like to do this on M686+ threads to show the differences. I love these revolvers but I can tell you right now I'd never conceal carry the big ones. I have carried the 4" in the feral hog hunting fields in East Texas and the 2.5" in other feral hog hunting fields hard by the Rio Grande. The former was carried on a belt holster and the latter in a shoulder rig. Neither is hard to carry that way when concealment is not an issue. Lots of folks conceal large handguns. I just happen to not be one of them. Okay, I did conceal the 2.5" under a vest but that was more because of the vest being camouflage colored and not to conceal the gun.

I've had the 4" for more than a decade, the 3" for around 7+ years long, and the 2.5" for probably 20 or more years. As noted, I really like them all and the 3 inch's rubber stocks fit my hand perfectly. It is my nightstand gun.

Just some notes FYI and I can't speak to the "current quality issues" at S&W - these are fine guns as far as I can tell..

 

[wproct]

Not to open a can of worms — but simply hoping to genuinely assist you…



It’s my strong opinion and the opinion of many that any 686 made right now just isn’t the same thing. It’s going to be like remembering how solid Mom’s Maytag washer was when you were a kid, and then buying a junker made today with that name on it.

.

Please forgive me if I appear to stray from the topic, but this post really struck a chord with me, and I think that it compares in many ways to todays guns. I started working for the Maytag Company in 1973. At that time their products had a stellar reputation, and deservedly so. It was quite unique because the vast majority of the components were made in house. From the metal screws used in the machine, to the rubber hoses used, to the casting of the aluminum housing of the transmission, and on down the line. This was before the manufacturing to meet a given life span that is present today was implemented. These machines were made to virtually last a lifetime. They had a product test group that would run these machines virtually non-stop for months on end just to test the durability and dependability. The company implemented a training program for it's dealers service personnel to assist in service when it was required. It truly was a magical time, much similar to the very early production years of Ruger.
However, competition and pressure to meet a price point started to take it's toll. More and more emphasis was placed on price and ultimately they were acquired by a competitor and manufacturing ceased in the original factories. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that the machines produced under the Maytag name today are a quality product that will compare favorably with competition, but it's not the same product and designs that were made in the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's. Time marches on.

Forgive me for rambling on, the comparison just caused my memories to kick in.

 

[sjs]

Well, I ordered a 3 inch 686 plus and it came in today. I shot it extensively at the FFL range and spoke about it in a separate thread called 65 Combat v. 686. I am very happy with the gun. The lockup, timing and cylinder gap are perfect. I may just be lucky and got one with no apparent problems. 160 rounds fired today so it is no long-term test, but I am not expecting any problems from this one. It is a beauty.

 

[Yendor357]

Old Smiths
New Colts.

3 inch revolvers are simply inherently cool, no matter who makes them.

 

[SWFan27]

Not to open a can of worms — but simply hoping to genuinely assist you…

If your last go round with a S&W 686 was back when IHMSA was most active then I would guess or suspect you’re talking 1980’s/1990’s.

It’s my strong opinion and the opinion of many that any 686 made right now just isn’t the same thing. It’s going to be like remembering how solid Mom’s Maytag washer was when you were a kid, and then buying a junker made today with that name on it.

There’s a truckload of older 686’s made and traded often on the used market. If your goal is to recapture magic, I promise that S&W made now ain’t it.

I have a 686+-6 made in 2004. It is still the most current model, and it is awesome in every way.